More Direct Style of Play

I've been thinking for a while now that this team NEEDS an identity in terms of how it's going to approach matches. With Andy Carroll finally showing what he is made of this past couple of months I think Kenny needs to decide how we're going to use him and where he fits in. If you look at Kenny's managerial past his teams have had two very distinct styles of play. At LFC his sides played in the true Liverpool fashion although he took it on to the next level with teams who played a quicker tempo with more urgency and verve in their play (compared to the sides of the past). At Blackburn his sides played a far more direct approach with the likes of Shearer & Sutton up top and grafters in the middle of the park (Sherwood, Batty) with Ripley and Wilcox putting balls into the box on a regular basis. Now it seems to me that Kenny has been stuck in two minds all season with how he wants his teams to play. Does he want the slick, quick, high tempo performances we enjoyed in the latter part of last season and at times this year? Or the more direct approach we've seen work to such good effect on a few occasions recently?

I don't think we can play both ways and I think he needs to decide. It's difficult to coach a team to do it this way one week and then completely change it up the following week.

Whilst we passed the ball well tonight I'd be interested to see how many longer balls (they weren't all punts) we put onto Andy's head, feet and chest. We saw Pepe kick rather than play from the back far more than is usual and whilst the Full-backs didn't play too many diags there were certainly a few of those as well.

Now personally I prefer the slick stuff, you should play me at FIFA, I will pass pass pass it all day long (and never bloody score!). I absolutely LOVE teams to keep the ball BUT when you've shelled out £35 million quid for a big target man who (on his day) is an absolute menace then maybe (just maybe) you have to build the side (and your playing style) around him because £35 million is a lot to pay for a lad to sit on the bench and come on as a Plan B when the pretty stuff isn't working.

Positives with playing this way based on the players we have and what i've seen in a few games are:

- Luis finally seems to be on the same page as Carroll, how many flick-ons and knock-downs did he get on the end of today/ He seemed to be in the right place more often than not and an understanding seems to be there now. Suarez even returned the favour on a couple of occasions.

- Midfield grafters like Henderson and Spearing become better players because a more direct style means 2nd ball wins become more important and for that you need workers in the middle of the park and for all their limitations you can't argue with the workrate of those two players.

One more point which I think it's worth mentioning is that many people assumed that buying Carroll meant you must have good crossers of the ball and then all you have to do is swing the ball in there and he will out leap everybody and score headers for fun. I think we proved early season that it doesn't necessarily work. Defenders in England can deal with this approach much of the time and it's worth noting we didn't resort to the hopeful cross tonight. There were far more cut-backs and players looking to find feet from that position. However, they could not deal with early balls played into Andy from a number of positions on the pitch. 

Today we had less possesion, but we dominated the game from minute 1. Still a few backward passes that made me scream, but otherwise, we bossed.
Games like today prove that moving the ball around is not dominating.
Movinng the ball efficiently around, and taking good shots is.

I think Luis was wasted on the second half when he was sent to the left. He is far more dangerous on the right and with lots of space

Seen a lot of people claim "We play better football with Carroll out of the team" or "He doesn't fit the pass & move system"..

The problem is that "system" hasn't resulted in us winning many games. Its as clear as daylight for me, when Carroll plays we look more threatening.

I don't give a sh*te how direct we setup personally, if playing to his strengths means winning more matches then I'm all f**king for it.

No point playing the pretty football if if you don't reap the benefits.

Don't think we should make a choice at all. We can use both, as long as you have good enough players who can read the game and assess risks. Know when it's important to keep the ball in possession, but also take opportunities when you see them. Why be one dimensional? If you want to be a top club then you have to play like one. If smaller clubs take a defensive approach against us, which they will, especially if we're doing better again, then the long ball approach won't get you anywhere. In those cases you're going to need creativity in passing, high tempo passing to break the opponent.

Watching the team play tonight was a joy. If playing a more diect style means we play like that then bring it on. Not one player played bad tonight and i reckon it was because they were all very comfortable playing that kind of system. Carroll was fantastic.

For me a lot depends on who you have in midfield. With Henderson and Shelvey in midfield, I thought we played it right by using both to close down the Chelsea midfield not giving them time to breath but bypassing them frequently when we had the ball. Maybe with Lucas and Gerrard in midfield we could afford to "play" a little more through the middle. Anything that works as they say.

I think if Gerrard doesn't up his game again next season he may find himself pushed out to the right wing or further forward than he has played for the latter part of this season. Whether Henderson, Lucas, Shelvey and Adam would be good enough to hold our midfield is another matter.

Certainly against most of the better sides we seem to have been more direct than against the lesser sides..... AND had much better fortunes too.
 

Call it a direct style or what you will, but I loved what I saw today.  They played free and easy like they were having fun on the pitch and it showed in the score.  I'd like to see more of that.

 The key for me is the midfielders (as has been mentioned). Carroll is magnetic to defenders whenever the ball comes accross the box as he's so good in the air and so dangerous, so it would be fantastic if we had an "arriver" from the middle. John Wark would have scored every week if he had Carroll sucking defenders out of the way, while a younger Gerrard would have had the gears to get up and around him and get all the knock downs which Suarez doesn't.

 It's probably six of one and half a dozen of the other in that we have to learn to be more direct ON OCCASIONS, and big Andy is having to learn to be able to participate in build up play and not just stand around like a doughnut waiting for a punt upfield. There has been significant progress in both areas recently. 

yeah i haven't seen us play like that in a while, always on the front foot. always pressing high. always looking to pass forward or at least make the right pass in our system to get it forward. the balls to the forwards that were flicked back quickly to keep it moving were awesome and that style can work with a big man up front or no big man.

I think if Gerrard doesn't up his game again next season he may find himself pushed out to the right wing or further forward than he has played for the latter part of this season. Whether Henderson, Lucas, Shelvey and Adam would be good enough to hold our midfield is another matter.

Agree fully with this, particularly if we're going to adopt a style akin to last night's performance. I'm not sure he has the legs to be one of a two in midfield IF the whole team are looking to press the ball as we did last night.

so it would be fantastic if we had an "arriver" from the middle. John Wark would have scored every week if he had Carroll sucking defenders out of the way

Last night it seemed as though one of our lads was always there at the right time "arriving" as you say to benefit from Andy's play.

Don't think we should make a choice at all. We can use both, as long as you have good enough players who can read the game and assess risks.

I still think you need to have an identity and a philosophy as a team. It's all very well saying it's horses for courses but teams (that win things) don't usuaully chop and change. They work on certains patterns on the training pitch, and they will react to certain pictures/situations in matches based on this. If andy Carroll is going to ever be worth the £35 million pound the club sheeled out for him then the side has to be a little less pretty than we have been more much of this past season.

Hmm... great topic and certainly food for thought Scott.

I'd probably need to give myself more time to give a proper answer but my Jekyll is definitely fighting Hyde over this one mate. I understand the philosophy of one "style" of football from youth right through but I've often cried at the lack of a plan-b when that "style" is working (during a game) or maybe I believe it won't work (before a game); dependent on opponents. Something myself and Diego were discussing a couple of weeks back.

At the moment I'm thinking more along the lines of a Bilbao team, which seem to be able to play a mix n match of both styles, when needed.

I'll get back later (I hope). 

Don't think we should make a choice at all. We can use both, as long as you have good enough players who can read the game and assess risks. Know when it's important to keep the ball in possession, but also take opportunities when you see them. Why be one dimensional? If you want to be a top club then you have to play like one. If smaller clubs take a defensive approach against us, which they will, especially if we're doing better again, then the long ball approach won't get you anywhere. In those cases you're going to need creativity in passing, high tempo passing to break the opponent.

This.

Its about the right style of play at the right time and as Bier says if you have intelligent players this can be achieved.

Said all season that we overplay and over complicate our game.

In Carroll we have a man who can bully defenders and in Suarez we have a man who can make them look stupid. All the others have to worry about is supplying them and then them two will take care of the rest. That isn't to say play long all game, we can give them the ball early on the deck as well, but just get them in the game!

Why we feel the need to play slow two touch football in midfield and in defence baffles me. Backwards and Sideways. This isn't good football, this isn't dominating a game and it isn't winning us matches. 

Get the ball into the front men early, start making opposition defenders work harder and be relentless in front of goal. The past 2 hours of football have shown quite clearly that the team benefits from a more direct style of play.

This.

Its about the right style of play at the right time and as Bier says if you have intelligent players this can be achieved.

But football diesn't work like that. How many teams in English football mix and match their style of play? They all have an identity, a playing style and for the most part they stick to it. The way we played last night is not the way we have tried to play this season for the most part, sure we passed it around BUT the ball went forward early and high on a number of occasions.

My take on a few of our rivals:

Arsenal - Pass it, pass it, pass it. Good tempo, they rarely cross the ball in the air, they look to play one-twos and cut-backs from the by-line when they get behind you. They for the most part do not have a plan B (to their detriment).

Unitited - Have played the same way for a number of years. They come up against bus parkers week in week out but find a way to beat them over and over. They keep the ball all day, notice they will pass it pass it in and slowly switch play in and around the oppo's box patiently until they find an opening, Fergie's teams are INCREDIBLY patient in this respect. they rely on always having skillful wide players who can beat players and drag others out of position.

Chelsea - Over the years not neally as pretty as their rivals but still keep the ball all day and generally work it forward quite slowly (hence Torres has struggled), particularly across the back line where they have a habit of playing from full-back, through the CBs and out again until the right pass becomes available to get it forward. Not a long ball team by any means but a little more direct and far less fluent than united and Arsenal.

City - Classical Italian approach (as you'd expect) from Mancini. Built on strength at the back and fairly cautious. I'm not sure he really has it in him to coach a side to play the way of an Arsenal or a united BUT he if you can afford players like Silva, Nasri and Aguero you don't need to because they will bring guile, craft and style to any set-up no matter how defensive or rigid you look to play. 

Scott - all valid points and perhaps I didnt make mine clear enough.

What I saw last night was free flowing, doing what was needed at the time. When the ball out wide was on we made it, when the best pass was a quick ball into Andy it was made. When we had space in the middle we played it there. We adapted at the right times and created lots of opportunities and that was pleasing to see.

The good thing about Andy is that he gives us the option to go more direct but i dont think he is limited to being a target man. I think one of the main reasons he has improved is that he is getting more involved in the short, crisp passing and then getting in the box as the move builds. I think his play with his feet deserves more credit than what it gets

Excellent thread. As said by previous posters I think Carroll has shown especially in the last few weeks that he is a much better player on the ground than people credit him for and his confidence has increased and he looks a top class striker. It now gives us the option to play both styles and not limited to just the one which can get very predictable. Getting the midfield more mobile certainly helps as well. It's all about options so it should never just be about banging it long up front all the time as it will not benefit Luis

I still think you need to have an identity and a philosophy as a team. It's all very well saying it's horses for courses but teams (that win things) don't usuaully chop and change. They work on certains patterns on the training pitch, and they will react to certain pictures/situations in matches based on this. If andy Carroll is going to ever be worth the £35 million pound the club sheeled out for him then the side has to be a little less pretty than we have been more much of this past season.

I think it's silly to want to change now because of a bad season. I also think it's silly to completely change a club's philosphy to fit one striker, just to make up for that 35 million we paid. Maybe the next striker we buy should be a clone of Carroll then so he'll fit that new philosophy too? We've mostly failed on the transfermarket and because of that we've failed to work towards playing the football we wanted. But there's another transferwindow coming up that will hopefully be more succesful and bring us closer to how we wanted to play in the first place. We've only been rebuilding for a season and you already want to give up and change? Do you think that all those teams that have a clear philosophy managed to build that in one season? And just because we have a target man doesn't mean we only have to hoof the ball to him. Once we get some more creative players in, that would drastically change our team. If we'd have good wingers and a good playmaker then we would be able to play like we want to. You can utilise Carroll as a target man and still have the other players play good creative passing.

I don't think it's a matter of choosing one way or the other. I think it's a matter of defining what should be done when, draw the lines. You don't have to play like Barcelona and have a very high defensive line and keep the playing field that small, but you don't have to have your defensive line just in front of your penalty box either. You don't have to always immediately put pressure on the opposition on their own half, but you don't always have to wait with doing it till they reach your own half either. You don't have to play as much on possession as Barcelona do, but you don't have to constantly counter or hoof it and loose possesion either. Depending on how you want to play you need to teach players what to do when. When the whole opposition is behind the ball defending on their own half, then it's useless to just hoof it to your striker unless you're desperate. But when there's more space and there aren't many defenders behind the ball, or someone just isn't marked then choose for a direct ball. Players with vision, creativity and football intelligence do these things by instinct, other need to be taught or just need to keep it simple. Same with putting early pressure on the opponent when defending, you need to pick your moments when their situation looks vulnerable and there aren't many options. So yeah, I don't think it's as black and white as having to choose one or the other.

I think it's silly to want to change now because of a bad season. I also think it's silly to completely change a club's philosphy to fit one striker, just to make up for that 35 million we paid. Maybe the next striker we buy should be a clone of Carroll then so he'll fit that new philosophy too? We've mostly failed on the transfermarket and because of that we've failed to work towards playing the football we wanted. But there's another transferwindow coming up that will hopefully be more succesful and bring us closer to how we wanted to play in the first place. We've only been rebuilding for a season and you already want to give up and change?

Try and stick to what i've written and not put words in my mouth. I said quite clearly that I prefer us to play the slick stuff, the quick passing the up tempo stuff, with players playing between the lines and a front line (ideally a 3) that are quick, mobile and interchangable.

Andy Carroll doesn't really fit that style of play, the style that we've been trying (and failing for the most part) to play this season. Hence the fact he has been on the bench for many of our big games this season although that is also linked to form.

I'm saying that if you want to get the best out of Andy Carroll then the diags, place kicks (from Pepe) and some of the longer stuff has be part of the gameplan. If it isn't then you had just as well move Andy on the summer and the club get what they can for him.

So yeah, I don't think it's as black and white as having to choose one or the other.

Football is never black and white but i'm happy to play devils advocate for the sake of some good footy debate.

Your first post just kind of comes across as although you prefer to play that slick way, you don't think that's the right approach and we should adjust it for Carroll. That's why I assumed that's what you wanted.

Earlier this season with Caroll in the team we've played some horrible football because we were hoofing it too much to Carroll, he was making us one dimensional. I think the main difference between then and our last game was Carroll, nothing else. He's looking better, not as static as he was, and better workrate too. We weren't playing more directly, we just succeeded at it more.

Your first post just kind of comes across as although you prefer to play that slick way, you don't think that's the right approach and we should adjust it for Carroll. That's why I assumed that's what you wanted.

Earlier this season with Caroll in the team we've played some horrible football because we were hoofing it too much to Carroll, he was making us one dimensional. I think the main difference between then and our last game was Carroll, nothing else. He's looking better, not as static as he was, and better workrate too. We weren't playing more directly, we just succeeded at it more.

Have to agree he looks leaner, quicker and more mobile than before and he also seems to have found his touch but I don't think we really tried to play to his strengths earlier in the season as you have suggested. Sure there was the odd punt and we did make a point of getting the ball wide and then simply swinging the ball into the box (more in hope than anything else) but it didn't work.

For me, if you're going to play the slick stuff you need movement from your front players. Now given that you often have to play with one up front in this league now (because most teams will play 3 in the middle of the park) then that means asking Carroll to lead the line but he's never gonna give you that movement to pull defenders about and attack and create space (for others) that is so crucial to way we have been trying to play this season.

The other top sides in the EPL do not have a player like Andy Carroll in their set-up. A big, strong, old fashioned target man who excels in the air and can bully players. And neither have they at any stage in the last 10-15 years as I can recall. I'd suggest the reason for this is because that type of player does not necessarily fit into the type of football they have been trying to play. The last title winning side to play with such a player was Blackburn in 1995 and we all know they had a style of football that was far more direct than the recent title winners.

Now I don't know that we can win a title playing more direct football and I don't know that it is necessarily right to change your whole playing style to suit one player HOWEVER, it would be foolish to buy a player like Andy Carroll and expect to be able to play in the same way as you would with the likes of Kuyt and Suarez in the forward positions. If you buy Andy Carroll and you want to succeed you have to play to his strengths rather than expecting him wholly to adjust his game to fit the team. 

Sign two quality wingers and the team will reap the rewards of a more direct system

To many times Liverpool managers have failed when trying to buy wingers. This summer we must get it right.

I heard an interesting stat while watching the game yesterday (no idea if it is true or not), three quarters of our goals have been scored when Andy has been on the pitch this season. Considering the limited time he has played and how poor he was until recently for me that's an outstanding stat if true.

Obviously we play at least a slightly more direct style when Andy plays, maybe that's the reason?

I do think that for the last few years we have struggled with our identity, never sure if we were a team that played through the middle on the break, pressurising teams or since Torres left a more cultured side building our attacks and using the wings much more.

For me we seem to have become more like the old Newcastle since Torres arrived, gaining our identity and style from the Centre forward/striker rather than the team.

I think this season we have played much better football than we have for years, but sadly without the success that we have had in the past. I have repeatedly said (so no harm in saying it again )that I believe the style we have played for much of the season is the right style to win titles once we get it right, rather than the more direct quick breaking 50/50 style we have seen under both Houllier and Rafa. We just need the right players and the right attitude and commitment from those players.

Do I believe we can have the best of both worlds, the stylish short quick passing football AND still accommodate Andy ...... I think we can, but only if we find the winning mentality that we have been desperately short of for 3 years now.